It is more than a simple "CICO" - why can't we just admit it?
Replies
-
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
Look above you for an example. There's lots of people who DON'T know they have to eat less calories. They think food x, y or z is the reason they got fat, then complain they didn't lose weight "even though they're eating healthy". That's the reality.
People have all kinds of issues, and everyone has different ones that we on a forum can't sort out for them from what little we know about those people.
What we CAN do is educate them. No you won't get fat from that twinkie. No you don't have to punish yourself for going over your calories one day. Diet Soda won't make you fat and added sugar won't kill you and give you diabetes either.
Because there is one thing that is true for every single person coming on here looking to lose weight, without fail. The one thing that will always lead to weight loss. It's not low carb or high carb or paleo or vegan, it's eating less calories than you burn in a sustainable way for you. I can't tell you what's going to be sustainable for you because you're literally just a paragraph of text on the internet from someone thousands of miles away, you need to find that out yourself, we can only give suggestions.
I completely agree with you and @VintageFeline.
My biggest issue, and I'm working in it, is the oversimplification of a complex issue.
If it was as easy as CICO, I wouldn't be spending thousands of dollars on an education to help people lose weight.
Like I said before, calories count!
But maybe we should dig a little before asking someone if they weigh food, or flat out accuse them of eating too much.
Simply ask the lifestyle questions!
It IS as easy as CICO. The bigger issue is that for many people having the CICO balance they need is difficult. Why that is and what the solution is, is, as stevencloser said, different for different people.
I am someone who intellectually believed in CICO, but was skeptical that it would work for me. I never dieted in my teens or 20s and by my early 30s when I became overweight for the first time felt out of control and like I'd gotten fat doing nothing different, and was out of control and depressed in general so thought weight loss wouldn't work for me, I couldn't imagine it. I decided to try it anyway (not counting calories, but controlling what I ate and eating less, vs. just eating whatever, and getting into shape physically through training for cardio things (running, mostly) and some weight training). My history was running, biking, swimming, x-country skiing and I'd just gotten out of it, so going back to cardio was natural for me.
Anyway, to my surprise the weight basically fell off and I wasn't hungry at all.
I maintained for a while but--because I was still me and had learned how to lose weight but not dealt with some of the underlying things--I ended up regaining starting about 5 years later related to a variety of causes that I think I understand but won't go into here. I KNEW how to stop the weight gain and lose weight during the whole time, but I didn't for reasons that are personal and psychological in some way. I don't think someone else could have fixed this by telling me how to lose weight, and I certainly don't think the answer was (as some would claim) changing my macros or eliminating specific foods and I overate but ate probably a lot more vegetables than most Americans (not hard, but for me eating vegetables has always seemed like the normal, right way to eat), and mostly from whole foods. When I lost weight the first time I had been eating out a lot due to lifestyle reasons (not fast food, but whatever), but that is something I'd changed when losing weight the first time (I became a much better and more efficient cook and learned to enjoy regular cooking), but not a habit I'd fallen back into.
So yes, I'd agree that getting to the right CICO balance can be difficult sometimes (although knowing that's what you need to do is important and helpful, IMO -- for me, essential even). I don't think there are obvious steps beyond that (well, for me activity is always important, but even that I don't think is generalizable, except that it is good for health).6 -
CaliMomTeach wrote: »It really was CICO for me and nothing else. I actually am annoyed I didn't know it was this "easy" years ago. 193 pounds to 137 in 30 weeks for me, ONLY by eating a calorie deficit.
I felt like this too, I was having real issues with being 'perfect', with whatever a 'healthy' diet was with no real guidance. Just decided to give it another go, on a random Thursday, no waiting till the folloing Monday or the start of the month. I logged what I are for a while, worked out what was high/low satiety, what was worth the calories (gin = yes, pasta = meh, lemonade = no).
It meant that when I started cutting, and I hadn’t prepared something I could just go into a super market, read the label and fit it in. Part of me is annoyed that I didn’t get stared sooner but I’ve started now.
I’m not negating that people have physical and psychological barriers that make it harder. I know when my depression is bad I can’t leave my bed let alone go outside. So my CI has to reflect my issues with CO.
2 -
CaliMomTeach wrote: »It really was CICO for me and nothing else. I actually am annoyed I didn't know it was this "easy" years ago. 193 pounds to 137 in 30 weeks for me, ONLY by eating a calorie deficit.
I felt like this too, I was having real issues with being 'perfect', with whatever a 'healthy' diet was with no real guidance. Just decided to give it another go, on a random Thursday, no waiting till the folloing Monday or the start of the month. I logged what I are for a while, worked out what was high/low satiety, what was worth the calories (gin = yes, pasta = meh, lemonade = no).
It meant that when I started cutting, and I hadn’t prepared something I could just go into a super market, read the label and fit it in. Part of me is annoyed that I didn’t get stared sooner but I’ve started now.
I’m not negating that people have physical and psychological barriers that make it harder. I know when my depression is bad I can’t leave my bed let alone go outside. So my CI has to reflect my issues with CO.
This is all me also. Just been CICO really, and it seemed absurd I didn't understand it earlier. Once I got it, it stuck like glue, and I've been off to the races with weight loss.3 -
CICO is simply the basis on which to start for strictly weight loss.
Then you have to take your individual person into account - what times of day do you prefer to eat depending on your work / life schedule? Do certain types of food leave you hungry whilst others fill you quickly? What foods do you enjoy / crave? I never crave sugar, for example, I am a salty person.
On top of that is various other things - do you have a good amount of muscle mass already, or have you never lifted a finger in your life? Do you HATE cardio? Because if you do, don't even try to stick to so-and-so's cardio weight loss routine!
So, yes, there are so many other factors we as individuals have to account for, but overall weight loss IS all about CICO. Nobody ever said it was easy to figure out the CO part though.3 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Weight loss and habits are outside of CICO and another matter.
Your post is like someone confounding nutrition content with energy content of foods.
YES, obesity is multi-factorial, but at the very bottom of someone's myriad issues, they are still taking in more energy than they are expending. In every. single. instance. The confounding factors will always vary and need to be addressed, of course, but they are always separate issues that don't invalidate CICO and don't make it ignorant.6 -
I must have missed that "debunking". Can someone direct me to where CICO got "debunked"?4
-
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Calories are important, however, if you don't address the underlying issues ie: habits, medication, hormonal imbalance, lifestyle, the rate of recidivism skyrockets.
So telling someone who's obese and has been obese for any length of time to simply "eat less, move more" is ignorant.
Doesn't negate CICO. You're talking about psychological factors outside of physical factors (which is acknowledge may change CO but CICO still applies).
If you don't address the underlying issues, the problem isn't calories.
The problem is the habits and lifestyle.
When you have weight loss on the calories that people think are healthy, then a year later the same person has regained everything back and then some....It's not the calories.
And I know plenty of people diet down on reasonable calories on this website but the majority of new members jump into the low calorie pool a little too fast and eager, find it to be unsustainable, and drop out.
When you weight cycle like that it's even more unhealthy than if you remained overweight in the first place.
So the issue isn't calories. The real issue is educating the new people about lifestyle and habit change! And my question is, how many people have you taught good lifestyle habits on this forum before throwing the "eat less move more" BS at them?
If you really think critically on the subject, I'm sure 99% of the obese or overweight people coming in here already know they need to eat less calories.
Zoom out folks and look at the bigger picture!
Here's the big picture!
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
You know you are making a lot of presumptions that aren't necessarily true.
I had great habits when I joined this site.
I was eating healthy foods. I had started, for the first time in my life a regular program of exercise and had come to love it. In fact, I found MFP through a trainer at my gym. I had established good and regular sleep habits. I had conquered a lot of my emotional eating triggers.
My biggest problem? I thought eating healthy was my ticket to slim town. I thought all I had to do was "eat right".
I was eating too damned much. I needed to learn how to count calories when I came here.
Your stepped approach presumes people know nothing.
Look at all the threads people start here about clean eating or Whole 30 that start off "Help! I'm eating right, exercising 4-5 days a week, and the scale's not moving!"
This isn't to say that some people don't need to take your approach. But certainly not all who come here have to. To assume they do ignores a large portion of a lot of posts that take place on here.8 -
CICO absolutely is simple. It's a basic math equation as simple as 1+1.
I am now empowered because I know exactly what I need to do to lose weight. It's on me now. I don't have to sit around guessing is it the food I'm eating, is it because I'm old or because I had a hysterectomy?
I have to figure out macros or meal frequency/timing. for satiation. I have to make sure I'm getting nutritious foods so I can have occasional "junk food". I have to figure out how to moderate. This is the work I put in. Because I have to figure this out doesn't negate the simplicity of CICO.
Let's say due to health (major medical issues aside) your CO is lower well you just slightly lower CI or you up CO by working out a little more.
I cannot emphasize enough how much of a lightbulb moment CICO/TDEE was for me.
I wish the fact that CICO is simple but figuring out how to adhere might not be easy would not be confused!!3 -
For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.
Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.
So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.
Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.
To the bolded: really? Granted, my health problems are not as major as some, but they are still enough to affect my weight.
Medical issues (diabetes, thyroid problems, HBP, IBS, etc.) generally fall into Calories Out. Once you get those sorted via medication or diet or a little weight loss, you should be able to lose weight (if that's your desire). That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. A lot of people who post asking about why they're not losing weight never mention having health problems. It's only after 4-5 pages do they finally divulge "oh I have PCOS/diabetes/bariatric surgery", then those CICO advocates adapt their advice to the now known problem.
And despite medical/physical/psychological issues, it's still CICO.
14 -
The difference from person to person "in general" is not a great deal. If you cut your calories by roughly 500-700 daily (some people do more, some less) even with minimal mislabeled nutrition information, you will lose. Exactly as pointed out above, if you're dropping 500 calories today, from what you were eating before and you're not seeing weight loss, adjust it to 600, or 700, wait a week or two and see if you're losing then. Once you find a good amount of calories to take in, stick to that for a while. Weigh and adjust, its that easy.4
-
mikeisgod83 wrote: »The difference from person to person "in general" is not a great deal. If you cut your calories by roughly 500-700 daily (some people do more, some less) even with minimal mislabeled nutrition information, you will lose. Exactly as pointed out above, if you're dropping 500 calories today, from what you were eating before and you're not seeing weight loss, adjust it to 600, or 700, wait a week or two and see if you're losing then. Once you find a good amount of calories to take in, stick to that for a while. Weigh and adjust, its that easy.
Just poking the hornets nest here a little!
So you're telling me that my wife who maintains her weight at 1200 calories a day should cut 500-700 calories from her diet to lose weight?
She's an endometriosis patient on heavy medication throwing hormones out of whack.
Flag on the play!1 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »mikeisgod83 wrote: »The difference from person to person "in general" is not a great deal. If you cut your calories by roughly 500-700 daily (some people do more, some less) even with minimal mislabeled nutrition information, you will lose. Exactly as pointed out above, if you're dropping 500 calories today, from what you were eating before and you're not seeing weight loss, adjust it to 600, or 700, wait a week or two and see if you're losing then. Once you find a good amount of calories to take in, stick to that for a while. Weigh and adjust, its that easy.
Just poking the hornets nest here a little!
So you're telling me that my wife who maintains her weight at 1200 calories a day should cut 500-700 calories from her diet to lose weight?
She's an endometriosis patient on heavy medication throwing hormones out of whack.
Flag on the play!
So you're just admitting to trolling at this point? The bolded portions of @mikeisgod83 invalidate your use of your wife's circumstances as an appropriate counter-argument. C'mon man...9 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »mikeisgod83 wrote: »The difference from person to person "in general" is not a great deal. If you cut your calories by roughly 500-700 daily (some people do more, some less) even with minimal mislabeled nutrition information, you will lose. Exactly as pointed out above, if you're dropping 500 calories today, from what you were eating before and you're not seeing weight loss, adjust it to 600, or 700, wait a week or two and see if you're losing then. Once you find a good amount of calories to take in, stick to that for a while. Weigh and adjust, its that easy.
Just poking the hornets nest here a little!
So you're telling me that my wife who maintains her weight at 1200 calories a day should cut 500-700 calories from her diet to lose weight?
She's an endometriosis patient on heavy medication throwing hormones out of whack.
Flag on the play!
Come on!
See the "in general" in mikes comment
4 -
For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.
Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.
So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.
Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.
To the bolded: really? Granted, my health problems are not as major as some, but they are still enough to affect my weight.
Medical issues (diabetes, thyroid problems, HBP, IBS, etc.) generally fall into Calories Out. Once you get those sorted via medication or diet or a little weight loss, you should be able to lose weight (if that's your desire). That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. A lot of people who post asking about why they're not losing weight never mention having health problems. It's only after 4-5 pages do they finally divulge "oh I have PCOS/diabetes/bariatric surgery", then those CICO advocates adapt their advice to the now known problem.
And despite medical/physical/psychological issues, it's still CICO.
Really. For every person out there who admits thyroid, medical, emotional or psychological issues will affect weight loss, I think there are just as many who say it is just CICO, so just eat less and move more. Or stop stuffing your pie hole.... I think that one showed up on the last page. Or I lost 70 lbs eating bread everyday so you can too.
So sure, CICO is the first advice to give, I agree with that. I AGREED weight loss comes down CICO. No argument there. But when people say they are already eating 1300 kcal per day, and yes they weigh their food, and no they do not just use the data from the food data base, then the posts tend to turn to: "Well, you are doing something wrong or just lying."
And not everyone knows about their health issues so they can't divulge it. They may realize that something is not quite right but have no idea what is wrong. I believe there are more undiagnosed diabetics than diabetics. Undiagnosed or improperly treated people with hypothyroidism is a really large number. NAFLD is a really fast growing problem that you won't know of in most cases. They may not be able to achieve CI<CO without great difficulty if those issues are not being addressed.
And then there are the people who do mention a health problem like T2D and are told to just eat less and lose weight. That's not an optimal diet for one with IR. It is a diet, and it may work eventually, but it isn't ideal.
You said:
[quote}That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. [/quote]
No need to get self righteous. I never said, " Zyxst, quit telling people 'it's CICO' without taking into consideration people's health problems." My comment wasn't supposed to be about you. Funny that you took it that way.
3 -
nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
Well then--just focus on health and see where that gets you.
3 -
Dealing with some people on the internet is always fun... I was making general statement, obviously ruling out medical conditions (consult your dr. not MFP forums #1) if she wants to lose weight @ a maintenance of 1200 a day, probably cut 50?? I was making a point that you're not going to lose weight, and then keep it off if you stop doing what you were doing in the first place. If you want to stay a healthy weight, you weigh yourself regularly, and adjust from the results.Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Just poking the hornets nest here a little!
So you're telling me that my wife who maintains her weight at 1200 calories a day should cut 500-700 calories from her diet to lose weight?
She's an endometriosis patient on heavy medication throwing hormones out of whack.
Flag on the play!
3 -
nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
I don't have to give up my 'nasty junk food', I just have to eat it in moderation (which I know you mentioned via overeating) that will allow me to fit it into my deficit.
Let's not talk about how my car looks... 6 -
For the record I agree with the OP - He clearly states that you have to take in less than you burn. If I read it right he is just staying that its not straight math that there are other issues that can make it difficult for some to lose and thus much of the advice given here is a overly simple and to me at times becomes overly nasty if you offer anything other than simple CICO.
Exactly. It does come down to CI<CO for weight loss but other factors can make losses very, very hard to achieve. I think that those who keep reasserting that "it's only CICO" are the ones who have not (yet) had to deal with those factors. I don't think it is in their realm of experience so they just don't see it.
So yes, it comes down to CI<CO but some people are not going to get there without medical treatment or medication, counselling, life changes, dietary changes (not just quantity) or such.
Twenty years ago I would have said it was all CICO. If I increased exercise, dropped a few calories, I lost weight. Now my circumstances have changed and just dropping calories does not work effectively anymore. I need some of those interventions. Once I have that, weight loss became as easy as it was 20 years ago. Sometimes those other factors need to be addressed for weight loss to hapen successfully.
To the bolded: really? Granted, my health problems are not as major as some, but they are still enough to affect my weight.
Medical issues (diabetes, thyroid problems, HBP, IBS, etc.) generally fall into Calories Out. Once you get those sorted via medication or diet or a little weight loss, you should be able to lose weight (if that's your desire). That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead. A lot of people who post asking about why they're not losing weight never mention having health problems. It's only after 4-5 pages do they finally divulge "oh I have PCOS/diabetes/bariatric surgery", then those CICO advocates adapt their advice to the now known problem.
And despite medical/physical/psychological issues, it's still CICO.
Really. For every person out there who admits thyroid, medical, emotional or psychological issues will affect weight loss, I think there are just as many who say it is just CICO, so just eat less and move more. Or stop stuffing your pie hole.... I think that one showed up on the last page. Or I lost 70 lbs eating bread everyday so you can too.
So sure, CICO is the first advice to give, I agree with that. I AGREED weight loss comes down CICO. No argument there. But when people say they are already eating 1300 kcal per day, and yes they weigh their food, and no they do not just use the data from the food data base, then the posts tend to turn to: "Well, you are doing something wrong or just lying."
And not everyone knows about their health issues so they can't divulge it. They may realize that something is not quite right but have no idea what is wrong. I believe there are more undiagnosed diabetics than diabetics. Undiagnosed or improperly treated people with hypothyroidism is a really large number. NAFLD is a really fast growing problem that you won't know of in most cases. They may not be able to achieve CI<CO without great difficulty if those issues are not being addressed.
And then there are the people who do mention a health problem like T2D and are told to just eat less and lose weight. That's not an optimal diet for one with IR. It is a diet, and it may work eventually, but it isn't ideal.
You said:
[quote}That you believe/think I'm telling "it's CICO" without taking into consideration people's health problems, then you're mislead.
No need to get self righteous. I never said, " Zyxst, quit telling people 'it's CICO' without taking into consideration people's health problems." My comment wasn't supposed to be about you. Funny that you took it that way.
[/quote]
It IS just CICO even WITH those things. Saying things like medical conditions can make it harder and saying it's about CICO are not mutually exclusive.11 -
mactaffy428 wrote: »Why do people say that it is all down to CICO as if it is really that simple? Why does dieting not work, then, if all we have to do is shut our pie holes every in a while?
LOL!!! Seriously?? Are you for real? THAT is the issue. It's HARD to resist food!!! People WANT TO EAT as much as they want. It's the whole reason so many are so overweight. How do you not know that????5 -
Lol, expert here who's WORKED with just about every type of person, dealt with health issues with clients, limited physical ability, bad genetics, etc. and I will still EMPHATICALLY say that it is that simple. There is NO WAY people will lose weight without implementing CICO with the exception of getting liposuction or losing a limb or body part.nomorepuke wrote: »If you figured it out that weight loss is not as simple as CICO like most people think, you've just won the lottery. There's no need for you to come in here and try to explain it to everyone. All you will get is angry people, try to prove you wrong like they're all experts. People don't want to admit that the weight loss isn't that simple. People don't want to give up their nasty junk food. People are deeply addicted to junk food and have overeating problems. Those people take care of their cars more than their bodies. They use the most efficient and expensive products such oil, gas, sea foam...etc to keep their cars work well. But when it comes to diet, all they want is weight loss. Health is none of their concern. Eating less is the most miserable way to lose weight.
No one EVER SAID you can't do it just eating "clean". That's a CHOICE not a necessity. There a lots and lots of people who lose weight without eating clean.
Are there some that need to adjust certain macros due to their health issues? Absolutely, but that doesn't negate that they still have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that usually means eating less than they are now IF they don't want to change WHAT THEY EAT.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
17
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions